Subject: [Sidrops] Terry Manderson's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-rtr-keying-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 21:17:05 -0800

Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidrops-rtr-keying-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidrops-rtr-keying/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Authors/Shepherd need not respond these comments, these are just thoughts to
take on as food for thought]

Thank you for a concise document, and especially thank you for the very
informal appendix ("B") to explain BGPsec/PKI key management to people who are
more concerned with making sure packets go from "here" to "there" and not be
crypto key management experts.

I have no strong concerns about document status, but BCP feels about right to
me given the art of dealing with key material on routing kit is likely to
evolve as experience dictates - that said, I won't be out of shape if the
sponsoring AD and the rest of the IESG feels otherwise - however I see that BCP
looks like the consensus at this stage.

I'm torn about the absence of a clear recommendation to choose between a
router-method operator-method. On one hand it seems a deficiency to leave it as
"free to choose" without providing a set of considerations that may help direct
the operators naive choice, and yet on the other hand the experience gained
thus far appears limited and this BCP is yet to find its way, and may well be
updated in future.